| www.jamesbarton.co.uk | ||
Stogumber's Poor: 1601-1834 |
||
The Tudor Poor Law |
||
| Private charity alone was never
sufficient for the relief of the poor. And by the end of the 1500s the
lack of any alternative source of support meant that the poor were
becoming a very major problem indeed. The number of poor was growing at an
alarming and rapid rate, and their numbers were such that they was
perceived to be responsible for a general breakdown in law and order.We
know something of the general situation in Somerset from a letter written
by a Somerset JP to Lord Burghley, Elizabeth I's chief minister, in
1596
I must report that there are an infinite number of wandering people and robbers of the land who are the cause of a dearth of food for though they labour not yet they spend double as much as the labourer doth for they lie idly in ale houses day and night eating and drinking excessively. A thief that was executed at the last assize told me that he had lain for three weeks in an alehouse with two others and that in that time they had stolen 20 fat sheep besides many a poor mans oxen too so that he was left unable to plough. I do not see how it is possible for the poor countryman to bear the burdens daily laid upon him, This year there assembled 80 people in a company who took a whole cart load of cheese from one driving it to market and dispersed it among themselves. There are three or four hundred idle wandering people in the shire and they go by two and three but sometimes meet up at fairs or in alehouses or in barns as many as 40 or 50 - no man dares to call them into question. in truth work they will not, neither can they without most extreme pains, by reason their sinews are so benumbed and stiff through idleness as their limbs being put to any hard labour will grieve them above measure. Some felons have begged me to hang them rather than be made to work. Rapes and thefts multiply daily. The bequest of Sir George Sydenham outlined in the opposite column, and the letter of the Somerset JP to Lord Burghley show that people then as now had conflicting attitudes towards the poor. On the one hand they felt sorry for them, and they felt that they had a moral obligation to help them as an act of Christian charity; but at the same time people were also scared of the effect on society of large numbers of poor people, and felt that the poor were poor only through their own idleness. And this conflicting attitude is reflected in the Tudor response to this which was a series of Acts of Parliament which culminated in the 1601 Act made in the last few years of the reign of Elizabeth the First. On the one hand this recognised that some people were unable to work – because they were old, infirm or orphaned children – but it was also premised on the belief that the majority of the poor were not working due to their own idleness – it wasn’t that they couldn’t work but that they wouldn’t work – and as such should be compelled to work. And the Tudor’s didn’t pussy foot about when it came to legislating for this... all vagabonds, all wandering persons, and common labourers ...using loitering and refusing to work for reasonable wages.. ...shall be openly whipped until his body be bloody, and shall forwthwith be sent from parish to parish strait to the parish where he was born, if the same may be known, and if the same be not known then to the parish where he last dwelt before the punishment to put himself to labour as a true subject ought to do; or if not being known where he or she was born or last dwelt then to the parish through which he or she last passed without punishment, to be by the officers of the last parish through which he or she passed without punishment, conveyed to the house of correction of the parish or to the common gaol there to remain or be employed in work until he or she shall be placed in some service.
And if any rogue shall appear dangerous...or otherwise be such as will not be reformed of their roguish kind of life it shall be lawful to the justice of their limits where any such rogue shall be taekin to commit that rogue to thehouse of correction or to the goal from whence they shall be banished from the realm and conveyed into such parts beyond the seas as shall be assigned by the privy council or otherwise be judged perpetually to the galleys of this realm. The provisions of the act with regard to whipping applied to children of 7 years and above. Turning to those who it was recognised couldn’t work – the so called impotent poor – the legislation had three main thrusts: Firstly, it put responsibility for the first time on to the civil parish for providing for and looking after its poor. Secondly, the parish was required to raise money from its inhabitants to provide for the poor – this was done by levying rates according to property values. Thirdly the parish was required to elect annually overseers of the poor who were responsible for the operation of the new poor law. And fourthly, these overseers were required to identify eligible paupers for receipt of the funds which they had raised. And so it was left up to the parish to decide how much to raise and how it was to be spent and on who and for what. In modern terms it would be a bit like handing over all the functions of the welfare state to the parish council. Luckily for us, another requirement of the Act was that the overseers were required to keep accounts and a large number of these accounts survive. They are in the Somerset Record Office and by and large they form the basis of the research which has been undertaken for this article. They give us a remarkable insight into life of fairly ordinary people, and of people down on their luck over two hundred years or so. |
Before 1601 the state or
government had not been involved in the matter of welfare provision. Poor
people had been relieved either by going begging, or by acts of private
charity, or above all by the monasteries and abbeys which spread
throughout the land
Destitute people had been able to come to the gatehouse at Cleeve Abbey for instance for alms or food. Although it is not known how many did this, as an indication in the last few months of the Abbey’s existence the 14 monks there had consumed 53 sheep and one ox in their kitchens so they were clearly feeding many more than just themselves. Likewise they had given out over £12 in cash payments to the poor in the same period. Henry VIII abolished the monasteries, but one of the perhaps unintended or unforeseen consequences of this was it also abolished a major source of relief for the poor. To an extent the abolition of the monasteries was partly redressed by people who would previously have made bequests in their wills to monasteries or to the church instead making bequests to the poor.
Men such as Sir George Sydenham, who is buried in Stogumber church, might previously have left money in their will to religious institutions in order that they would pray for his soul and secure an early release from purgatory. Now they were more inclined to leave bequests of a more direct charitable nature.Sir George died in 1597 and left provision in his will for the building of six almshouses in the village.
Some years after his death no further action had been taken with regard to this particular part of his will and the dicoesan authorities had to secure an undertaking from his heir that matters were put in hand. Six poor widows were housed in the alms houses who also received an income from the Combe Sydenham estate. This was still being paid out until the early years of the last century when the almhouses were sold and converted to a private house. This was but the first of several other legacies left by wealthy people in the parish. Others were made for instance by William Lacey who died in 1607, by John Sweeting in 1646, by George Trevalyn in 1653, by Lady Sydenham and so on and so forth. In 1658 these sums were invested to produce an annual income of £10, and similarly in 1722 money from charitable bequests was combined to buy land in Bishop’s Lydeard, the income from which was distributed to the poor. But generous and worthy though these legacies were they were nowhere near enough to address the size of the problem; the income they provided would have covered only about 5% of what the parish needed to support its poor.
|
|
